On Cosmic Contemplation, Universal Brotherhood And
The Need of Getting
Rid of Belief in Monotheistic Gods
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein
(1879-1955)
A 2012 Editorial Note:
In her article “What
Are the Theosophists?”, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891) wrote:
“….Once that a student abandons the old and trodden
highway of routine, and enters upon the solitary path of independent thought - Godward - he is a Theosophist; an original
thinker, a seeker after the eternal truth with ‘an inspiration of his own’ to
solve the universal problems.”
And she added:
“With every man that is earnestly searching in his
own way after a knowledge of the Divine Principle, of man’s relations to it,
and nature’s manifestations of it, Theosophy is allied. It is likewise the ally
of honest science, as distinguished from much that passes for exact, physical
science, so long as the latter does not poach on the domains of psychology and
metaphysics. And it is also the ally of every honest religion - to wit, a
religion willing to be judged by the same tests as it applies to the others.”
According to this definition, Einstein was a theosophist. He was also a long-standing personal reader
of Helena Blavatsky’s. [1]
The three fragments that follow are reproduced from pp. 40-49 of the
volume “Ideas and Opinions”, by
Albert Einstein. The book is based on Mein
Weltbild, edited by Carl Seelig, with new translations and revisions by
Sonja Bargmann. It was published by
Bonanza Books, New York, in 1954, with 378 pp.
The first and brief fragment describes the higher, contemplative aspect
of scientific activities. The second one includes an investigation on the sort
of intelligence that leads individuals to perceive the law of universal
brotherhood.
The third text coincides with the Letter 10 of “The Mahatma Letters” (TUP edition), and with Buddhism, Taoism, and
Spinoza’s philosophy, in demonstrating the utter impossibility of such a
fiction as a monotheistic God. Einstein shows, just as Helena Blavatsky did,
that the various forms of true religious spirit must get rid of “God” and other
superstitious ideas in order to help mankind into its next evolutionary step,
towards universal brotherhood and a deeper respect for Life.
(Carlos Cardoso Aveline)
NOTE:
[1] Sylvia Cranston demonstrated that Einstein was a
long-time student of “The Secret Doctrine”, the masterpiece written by Mrs. Blavatsky.
See “HPB - The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky, Founder of
the Modern Theosophical Movement”, by Sylvia Cranston, a Jeremy P.
Tarcher/Putnam Book, published by G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1994, 648 pages.
See preface, p. XX; pp. 434-435; and note 22 to Part 7 of the book, at pp.
605-606. (CCA)
1.The Religious Spirit of Science
Albert Einstein
[Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam: QueridoVerlag,
1934.]
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds
without a religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religiosity
of the naïve man. For the latter, God is a being from whose care one hopes to
benefit and whose punishment one fears;
a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a
being to whom one stands, so to speak, in a personal relation, however deeply
it may be tinged with awe.
But the scientist is
possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit
as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about
morality; it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of
a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an
intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic
thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he
succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond
question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all
ages.
2. Science and Religion - Part I
Albert Einstein
[ Part I of “Science and
Religion” is from an address at
Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939. It is also published in “Out of
My Later Years”, Albert Einstein, New York, Philosophical Library, 1950, pp.
19-22. ]
During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held
that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The
opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be
replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on
knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this
conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and
knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people’s education, must
serve that end exclusively.
One will probably find but
rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form;
for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the
position. But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one
wants to clear up one’s mind as to its nature.
It is true that convictions
can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one
must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception
is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant
for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid
scientific way.
For the scientific method
can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by,
each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest
of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to
belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it
is equally clear that knowledge of what
is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of
what is, and yet not be able to
deduct from that what should be the goal
of our human aspirations.
Objective knowledge provides
us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the
ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source.
And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our
activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of
corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so
little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification
and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we
face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
But it must not be assumed
that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of
ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end
certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end.
Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere
thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make
clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the
emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important
function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one
asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot
be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a
healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and
aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as
something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their
existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through
revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt
to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.
The highest principles for
our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious
tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach
only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations
and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and
look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and
responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers
freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.
There is no room in this for
the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual. Are we
not all children of one father, as it is said in religious language? Indeed,
even the divinization of humanity, as an abstract totality, would not be in the
spirit of that ideal. It is only to the individual that a soul is given. And
the high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to
impose himself in any other way.
If one looks at the
substance rather than at the form, then one can take these words as expressing
also the fundamental democratic position. The true democrat can worship his
nation as little as can the man who is religious, in our sense of the term.
What, then, in all this, is
the function of education and of the school? They should help the young person
to grow up in such a spirit that these fundamental principles should be to him
as the air which he breathes. Teaching alone cannot do that.
If one holds these high
principles clearly before one’s eyes, and compares them with the life and
spirit of our times, then it appears glaringly that civilized mankind finds
itself at present in grave danger. In the totalitarian states it is the rulers
themselves who strive actually to destroy that spirit of humanity. In less
threatened parts it is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the oppression
of the individuals by economic means, which threaten to choke these most
precious traditions. [1]
A realization of how great
is the danger is spreading, however, among thinking people, and there is much
search for means with which to meet the danger - means in the field of national
and international politics, of legislation, or organization in general. Such
efforts are, no doubt, greatly needed. Yet the ancients knew something which we
seem to have forgotten.
All means prove but a blunt
instrument, if they have not behind them a living spirit. But if the longing
for the achievement of the goal is powerfully alive within us, then shall we
not lack the strength to find the means for reaching the goal and for
translating it into deeds.
3. Science and Religion - Part II
Albert Einstein
[Part II is from “Science, Philosophy
and Religion, A Symposium”, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy
and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York,
1941. Also published at “Out of My Later Years”, by Albert Einstein, pp. 22-28.]
It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we
understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by
means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as
thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt
at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of
conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of
the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this
particular moment, I still remain convinced that I never under any
circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all
those who have given this question serious consideration.
At first, then, instead of
asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the
aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a
person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the
best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires
and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings
because of their superpersonal value. It seems to me that what is important is
the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning
its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to
unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible
to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities.
Accordingly, a religious
person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and
loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor
are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and
matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old
endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values
and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one
conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a
conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds
remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of
human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and
relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known
conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a
misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
For example, a conflict
arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all
statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of
religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church
against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand,
representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental
judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method,
and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts
have all sprung from fatal errors.
Now, even though the realms
of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other,
nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and
dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has,
nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will
contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be
created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and
understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of
religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the
regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is,
comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that
profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without
religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Though I have asserted above
that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist,
I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point,
with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification
has to do with the concept of God.
During the youthful period
of mankind’s spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man’s own image,
who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate
to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of
these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in
the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the
gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that
men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of
their wishes.
Nobody, certainly, will deny
that idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal
God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its
simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other
hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea itself, which have
been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is
omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human
thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it
possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts
before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to
a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with
the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
The main source of the
present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in
this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general
rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time
and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is
required - not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of
its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But
hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe
them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are
able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with
great precision and certainly is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have
grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that
planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with
great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar
way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance
the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a
wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.
To be sure, when the number
of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large,
scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather,
in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless
no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose casual
components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond
the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation,
not because of any lack of order in nature.
We have penetrated far less
deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but
deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One
need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of
poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is
still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a
knowledge of order in itself.
The more a man is imbued
with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction
that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of
a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine
will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine
of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science,
for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific
knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
But I am persuaded that such
behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be
unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in
clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind,
with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical
good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a
personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past
placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have
to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good,
the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more
difficult but an incomparably more worthy task.[2] After religious teachers accomplish the refining process
indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been
ennoble and made more profound by scientific knowledge.
If it is one of the goals of
religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric
cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet
another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover
rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its
only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest
possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this
striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its
greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to
run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusions. But whoever has undergone
the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain is moved by
profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of
the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of
personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind
toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its
profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to
me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me
that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its
anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our
understanding of life.
The further the spiritual
evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to
genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of
death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this
sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do
justice to his lofty educational mission.
NOTES:
[1] Science and Religion (Part I) is a speech delivered
in 1939. The idea expressed in this particular paragraph remains fundamentally
updated in the first half of 21st century. (CCA)
[2] Note by Einstein: “This thought is
convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel’s book, Belief and Action.”
In September 2016, after a careful analysis of the state of the
esoteric movement worldwide, a group of students decided to form the Independent Lodge of Theosophists,
whose priorities include the building of a better future in the different
dimensions of life.
000
